Origin of Government.

[desertedcities]

No, not of governmental styles, but of government itself.

I was thinking about this after listening to someone I knew babble on about the origin of various styles of governing. I came to certain conclusions (which are rather unsupported by anything but my opinion and limited knowledge).

First off, I thought about prehistory. Not too far back, but just past when the human species began to reason closer to how we do today. Past when there was the strict alpha-male system of dominance (which is still around today, but not always in government, well, this can be argued actually). I thought that the single tribe family structure would indeed have a certain 'chieftain' who was the alpha male, or patriarchal father of the tribe... Or whatever. This chieftain would dictate the rules of the tribe, what went, and what didn't. Where they would go on their nomadic lifestyle, all the other little factors. I didn't go as far as calling them enlightened despots because they were doing what they saw as what was best for their tribe. Hell, I came close though. Still, one would hope they were enlightened despots doing what they saw as best for their tribal family. This all could be considered the first instance of government, based on instinctual and inherent biological traits (I really don't know what I'm talking about).

I didn't call it the first instance of government because of the latter statement. From there, though, I went to the fact that multiple tribes may come into contact. And being different tribes conflict over their hunting and foraging grounds. The first wars, as it were, heh heh. I figured because humans are humans, that they would band together at one point or another (either that or wipe off the other tribe). From here I think it would either go to the alpha male tribal leader who bests the others in whatever they did back then, or to a collective of the tribal leaders working together as the first 'oligarchy' (I think). Making collective decisions for their tribal collective. Being the fisrt instance of a government as I see it. Yeah...

This is all speculation, I know. I'm bored. I need something to think about.

I also (don't know why) thought that anarchy couldn't work (at least not until we stop operating out of the reptilian brain as humans). I mean, it could work. That is if certain people didn't have the desire for power. Because I think that'll be what arises out of anarchy, a tribal system of government. Forming either the second thing I mentioned, or the first. I think the second would warrant a social contract because of our nature as a social creature. I don't know. The first would be the most likely, I think. because people I know like the idea of absolute power (I'd like to think I'd be a benevolent enlightened despot, but as we all know, absolute power corrupts absolutely).

Alright, I'm done for now.

 

[JBeukema]

Personally, I believe that a variant of Social Contract Theory best describes the emergence of government, ethics, and law

 

[desertedcities]

That, I think, would definitely part of it with humans being the social creatures we are.

That's also why I think socialism in small communities (of around 1000 or less) works the best, because they can easily form a social contract and build their government from there.

 

[Homunclus]

From what I recall isn't it generally considered that those ancient tribes where essencially an anarchy? I mean it's natural that any member of the tribe could be more influential than the others, because they posessed a particulary usefull skill or something, but still there where no formal leaders.

And all that changed around the time they invented agriculture and created the first permenante setlements. Because the volume of population increased that lead to the need of more formal types of leadership and eventually to laws...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

From what I recall isn't it generally considered that those ancient tribes where essencially an anarchy? I mean it's natural that any member of the tribe could be more influential than the others, because they posessed a particulary usefull skill or something, but still there where no formal leaders.

And all that changed around the time they invented agriculture and created the first permenante setlements. Because the volume of population increased that lead to the need of more formal types of leadership and eventually to laws...

That seems just about right... the rules for small tribes simply don't "scale up" for larger groups of people. My best example is from personal experience: the military rank structure. There's a reason why a 4-man fire team is led by a corporal or a sergeant, a regiment is led by a colonel, and a colonel is something completely different from a "super-corporal." The more people you have, the more rules you need, and the more government and everything else.

If you have one guy in charge of 3 other people and you add two more... he can just keep leading with a few more folks. If you add twenty more? You probably need to split the day-to-day among 2-3 people, and have one person be in charge of the whole thing, and the dynamic of the group changes. When you add 200,000,000 you have a country which ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES a level of organization different than a generally anarchist structure that might work on a tiny scale, the same way that the organization of four people is fundamentally different from an organization of 24.

 

[desertedcities]

Haha, I've been enlightened (somewhat).

 

[WolfAU]

Hierachy's have been around for as long as there's been humans. Despite our rhetoric we're not all equal, by birth or otherwise, some of use are smarter, some better hunters or warriors, some more fertile etc, and these people naturally develope more power and influence than others. Leading to very commonly occuring tribal structures like a council of elders. To me modern governments are a natural progression of this.

However certain ideas that aren't so natural like taxation, a standing army (which most tax collection is to pay for along with extravogant luxury for the leaders). As far as I can tell Taxation seems to have been 'discovered' and enforced at multiple seperate and isolated countries around the same time... so does anyone have any greater insight into the developement of taxation?

I'm generally weary to label something 'instinctual', even if it has spontaneously 'evolved' in multiple isolated countries... Alot of stuff like that is less about nature and more about necessity (ie need X must be met, and most modern societies found option Y the best method of dealing with it), this isn't really true instinct. In the case of governments, need X is for increasingly more complex social structures (things like trade, bigger cities, bigger populations with more specialists etc).

It also depends how you define 'Anarchy', no social structure that reaches equilibrium (ie not a society going through a transitional period) has no power structures, but in many countries, these power structures are gangs, not governments... considering both are criminal, I guess take your pick, though generally governments are subject to more scrutiny so I spose given the choice between them I'll take governments. As such it is not so much that anarchy cant work as the developement of power structures is inevitable... however the most desireable outcome for the lower classes is when that power is spread out (ie hundreds have a little power, than one having ultimate power), though this creates the risk of power struggles (and things like civil wars) and people just bickering when crisis time comes rather than getting anything done.

I don't think its inevitable for power to corrupt, but few people who inherit ultimate power have learnt humility (ie being born into royalty rots the brain). For a benevolent dictatorship to work the person in question would need to have the wisdom to hire competant underlings, trust them to some degree (ie paranoia of being overthrown is the undoing of most dictators), and the humility to accept their council. Unfortunately these are quite rare traits in humans (particularly once they realise that it is important to not appear weak, and they see listening to the advice of others as just that, and that logic goes on to justify alot of atrocities).

I mean the scary thing about being at the top is realising you're just a man barking orders, and if others realise that your power comes from people doing as you say, and if they were to stop doing as you say you are powerless they would overthrow you. Combine that with the fact there are often many others who have some claim to rule and many trying to take over, you see conspiracies everywhere...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Hierachy's have been around for as long as there's been humans. Despite our rhetoric we're not all equal, by birth or otherwise, some of use are smarter, some better hunters or warriors, some more fertile etc, and these people naturally develope more power and influence than others. Leading to very commonly occuring tribal structures like a council of elders. To me modern governments are a natural progression of this.

However certain ideas that aren't so natural like taxation, a standing army (which most tax collection is to pay for along with extravogant luxury for the leaders). As far as I can tell Taxation seems to have been 'discovered' and enforced at multiple seperate and isolated countries around the same time... so does anyone have any greater insight into the developement of taxation?

I would disagree with you about things like taxation and standing armies on two grounds. First off, if people do it is is natural... because the term "natural" is mostly meaningless. Secondly, those things seem to be an extension of the way any group works. In a small-ish tribe the hunters hunt, the farmers farm, the wives tend the babies, the leaders lead, the religious leaders leach off of everyone( :lol: )... and everyone kicks their goods into the common pool from which everyone draws.

The hunters might very well claim a higher percentage of the calories because they burn more calories in hunting, but they do not at any point claim that someone else should hunt for them while they collect a greater share of the hunt than anyone else because their grandfathers were great hunters. That's what rich people complaining about their taxes are generally doing.

It would also be ridiculous for an entire tribe to have hunters, and then decide that they don't need anyone to do the hunting or protect the tribe... which is why we have standing armies. It isn't that we "want" one, but that we know that it works better than the alternative.

 

[WolfAU]

Well you could argue that patriachy is 'natural' until you look around and realise that humanity has tried matriachy systems, therefore making it more of a social roll of a dice than integrated into who we are as a species. As such things like taxes and standing armies are more about common traits in societies that WORKED (with the more complacent, peaceful tribes getting enslaved/killed), rather than inherant in the system. But I agree the word 'natural' is very loaded.

To me the wealthy it is not so much the children are 'better', but more we feel a desire to give something to our offspring, it if means leaving them wealth we will adjust society to allow us to do that.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by a STANDING army, as in having career soldiers during time of peace. Many societies like Florence (pre-Machiavelli) had next to no standing army (having a police force that kind of doubled as soldiers), and relied on militia and mercenaries when in danger, as such it is not essential to have a standing army (though the example of Florence probably isn't the best example of that). Many tribal cultures do not have professional warriors, but many members have some training in war (a kind of 'universal militia' approach).

Plus, look at all these modern countries without standing armies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#No_defence_forces

The main reason we have a standing army is...
1. Everyone else has one, and if we didn't, they'd invade in no time.
2. They're not so much about protecting a country from external threats, but about internal threats (ie civil war/disorder), as such standing armies are a justification for politicians to create and pay for a system which gives them more power.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Well you could argue that patriachy is 'natural' until you look around and realise that humanity has tried matriachy systems, therefore making it more of a social roll of a dice than integrated into who we are as a species. As such things like taxes and standing armies are more about common traits in societies that WORKED (with the more complacent, peaceful tribes getting enslaved/killed), rather than inherant in the system. But I agree the word 'natural' is very loaded.

To me the wealthy it is not so much the children are 'better', but more we feel a desire to give something to our offspring, it if means leaving them wealth we will adjust society to allow us to do that.

I'm willing to concede all of that as a difference of emphasis or interpretation, because I don't think our views are that far off.

[/quote]I think you misunderstand what I mean by a STANDING army, as in having career soldiers during time of peace. Many societies like Florence (pre-Machiavelli) had next to no standing army (having a police force that kind of doubled as soldiers), and relied on militia and mercenaries when in danger, as such it is not essential to have a standing army (though the example of Florence probably isn't the best example of that). Many tribal cultures do not have professional warriors, but many members have some training in war (a kind of 'universal militia' approach).

Plus, look at all these modern countries without standing armies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#No_defence_forces

The main reason we have a standing army is...
1. Everyone else has one, and if we didn't, they'd invade in no time.
2. They're not so much about protecting a country from external threats, but about internal threats (ie civil war/disorder), as such standing armies are a justification for politicians to create and pay for a system which gives them more power.[/quote]
I think that reflects on my earlier point about certain concepts not "scaling up" if you see my meaning. When you get to be a certain size, a standing army becomes required, no matter how much we might disagree with it.

 

[richi1173]

That, I think, would definitely part of it with humans being the social creatures we are.

That's also why I think socialism in small communities (of around 1000 or less) works the best, because they can easily form a social contract and build their government from there.

Full blown Anarcho-Communism works on foraging bands. Just look at the Kung Sang of Africa. There is no form of government, there is full participation between women and men, the are no socio-economic classes and everybody shares every piece of property with everybody (if it is necessary).

Hell, they even have full blown generalized reciprocity. The word "thank you" is almost an insult to them because it is expected that you do favors for the good of the tribe.

If you and your family were to be dropped off on a deserted island, you would be Anarcho-Communistic.